Most kung fu schools remind me of survey classes in college. Actually, kung fu, itself, does not remind of survey classes. The way kung fu is taught reminds me of survey classes. Survey classes give you a general idea of the subject. It goes over a broad topics.
What I mean is this: Many kung fu school teach mainly forms, few applications, and even fewer sparring/ realistic self defense techniques. It is kind of like those physics for non-scientist classes.
After thought:
Kung fu is archaic as a fighting and self defense style. However, it is still effective if it is taught by a good teacher. In addition, it has cultural, historical, health, mental and in some ways spiritual benefits.
Do you need to learn MMA or other martial arts to successfully defend yourself? Not necessarily. If you want to be a complete sports fighter, you do. Do all fights go to the ground? No. This is a modern myth. However, this does not mean that fights cannot go to the ground. Not all sports fights go to the ground. This is true even with two grapplers.
Like mentioned above, kung fu is archaic. It is difficult to teach correctly, and it is difficult to learn. It also takes a long time to learn in most cases. The good thing is that most of us do not live in societies where fighting skills are needed in a short period of time. Plus, do not forget the benefits mentioned above.
[QUOTE=neilhytholt;749538]So basically you’re saying that the teachers suck (and are liars), but still go to them. I don’t really like that sentiment.[/QUOTE]
I did not say that. They are two different thoughts. That is why there is a line between them. They are not connected.
The second has an assumption. The assumption is that the kung fu style is taught correctly.
